this post was submitted on 31 Jan 2026
174 points (95.8% liked)

Technology

79763 readers
3409 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] towerful@programming.dev 32 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Scott Manley has a video on this:
https://youtu.be/DCto6UkBJoI

My takeaway is that it isn't unfeasible. We already have satellites that do a couple kilowatts, so a cluster of them might make sense. In isolation, it makes sense.
But there is launch cost, and the fact that de-orbiting/de-commissioning is a write-off, and the fact that preferred orbits (lots of sun) will very quickly become unavailable.
So there is kinda a graph where you get the preferred orbit, your efficiency is good enough, your launch costs are low enough.
But it's junk.
It's literally investing in junk.
There is no way this is a legitimate investment.

It has a finite life, regardless of how you stretch your tech. At some point, it can't stay in orbit.
It's AI. There is no way humans are in a position to lock in 4 years of hardware.
It's satellites. There are so many factors outside of our control that (beyond launch orbit success), that there is a massive failure rate.
It's rockets. They are controlled explosives with 1 shot to get it right. Again, massive failure rate.

It just doesn't make sense.
It's feasible. I'm sure humanity would learn a lot. AI is not a good use of kilowatts of power in space. AI is not a good use of the finite resource of earth to launch satellites (never mind a million?!). AI is not a good reason to pullute the "good" bits of LEO

[–] mrnobody@reddthat.com 14 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Not to mention all that stuff left in space can't just be brought down safely to reuse/recycle like other materials. So it's a permanent loss of resources.

[–] knightly@pawb.social 10 points 16 hours ago

And not just the resources, those orbits are going to be cluttered with slowly-deorbiting junk too. Until we get around to making something that can clean them up, we won't be able to put anything else there.